Open discussion of the Christian Why We're Here thread

[Catholic_Lady]

But that's the thing though. People here say terribly offensive things and make generalizations and assumptions about theists all the time lol. Just look through the threads and even some of the thread titles alone. The generalizations and offensive things Neo said about atheists on the debate thread don't really compare to the amount aimed at theists throughout the rest of the forums.

And this is why I say the crucial difference is that he's wrong.

To clarify, are you saying that it's ok to insult people and generalize groups in an unflattering way so long as you're on the correct side of the argument? I may have misunderstood.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, I didn't know that.

But but but.... he said everyone knew it!

I knew it, and I stopped calling him it. Not that he notices when people actually do respect his wishes, even the people who are the most otherwise hostile towards him (people such as myself)...


... but I do think my hostility is justified. That's the point. I'm not hostile to just any theist. There's a reason I don't talk to CL like I do to Neo. Because she's not an abject judgmental asshole full of almost nothing but smarmy obfuscation, implicitly confessed confirmation bias and prejudice towards atheists.

[Whateverist]

No, I didn't know that.

But but but.... he said everyone knew it!

I knew it, and I stopped calling him it. Not that he notices when people actually do respect his wishes, even the people who are the most otherwise hostile towards him (people such as myself)...


... but I do think my hostility is justified. That's the point. I'm not hostile to just any theist. There's a reason I don't talk to CL like I do to Neo. Because she's not an abject judgmental asshole full of almost nothing but smarmy obfuscation, implicitly confessed confirmation bias and prejudice towards atheists.

Even if justified is it required? Is it best for you? Is it what you’d have everyone do in your place?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Had no clue Neo. Apparently not everyone.

Fair enough. But I've said it a lot and more importantly repeatedly to the people, like Chimp, who seem to delight in defying my request.

[Edwardo Piet]

And this is why I say the crucial difference is that he's wrong.

It's natural to always feel that we are right, and the other wrong, but those feelings are not always reliable.  I think it is a bit naive to build one's incensed feeling that the other is wrong into some greater conclusion.  If your only reason for your animosity toward Neo is because you feel he is wrong in his generalizations, then I suspect you are not on particularly solid ground.

Of course, the feelings that we are right is not what makes us right... and I say "us" because we both think this... so let's not pretend that you don't think he is wrong about atheism being ignorant of God just as much as I do. Why do feelings have anything to do with it (for starters, perhaps especially in my case: WHAT feelings?)... there are reasons why atheists are not ignorant by disbelieving in a load of fairy tails, yes? Where did I ever say "I'm right because I feel I am"? Nowhere, that's where (ironically you seem to merely feel that I feel that because I didn't actually say it anywhere): you and me both think we're right and he's wrong and we don't think it because we have a hunch or because we can't handle The Truth or any of that bullcrap. We think we're right because we have rational reasons to believe that modern theism isn't worth taking seriously any more than ancient theism or mythology. And Neo doesn't take any of the other gods seriously for exactly the same reasons... we just go one god further.

[Joods]

On thinking about it further, it might be inevitable that theists offend others who don't share their dogma. Just one example off the top of my head. If you are indoctrinated into believing that homosexuality is sinful, then you are not going to be receptive to anything that gay people say to you to enlighten you. Same when it comes to dogma about abortion, women's rights, gender dysphoria, non-nuclear families, open relationships etc. It means that all the rational decisions that you had to make when living your life, which may not have been your choice, get brushed aside without consideration merely because it feels wrong to the indoctrinated theist.  It effectively nullifies you as a person and that can be deeply insulting.

You're nullifying theists as people by assuming they were indoctrinated into those positions, rather than reaching them by rational thought.

bold mine. 

Oh please. Do tell me what sort of rational thought, a 4 or 5 year old sitting in a children's church being taught how beautiful the story of Noah's ark is, could possibly have? 

You know as well as I do that the vast majority of believers, do so because their parents taught them about god and how he was good and great. So they grew up thinking that god was real. And then they did it to their children and their children did it to their children ad nauseum. How else do you think religion has survived as long as it has? Indoctrination yes. Rational thought? Hell no. If theists had any sort of rational thought, they wouldn't be theists in the first place. 

You are being completely disingenuous when you say otherwise.

[Edwardo Piet]

And this is why I say the crucial difference is that he's wrong.

To clarify, are you saying that it's ok to insult people and generalize groups in an unflattering way so long as you're on the correct side of the argument? I may have misunderstood.

No I'm saying it's not a generalization if the generalization is correct. Just as it's not a generalization to say that all squares have four sides or generalization to say that all Nazis who followed Hitler all followed Hitler.

Of course, nowhere did I suggest that all theists are anything--besides irrational in their theism--but the point is that what I said wasn't judgmental or patronizing because what he actually quoted I was right about, as Mathilda confirmed (all I was doing is saying what I think Mathilda was trying to say and it turns out it really was what she was trying to say)... but what he said was judgmental and patronizing because he literally spoke of atheists being ignorant of the truth and yet his beliefs about atheism being wrong have no basis. And what's more: he went much further than that... he said that we didn't even want hope, that we weren't even seeking the truth in other words--the truth from his perspective i.e. Christianity--and... ironically he flat out admitted (albeit implicitly but regardless of what he said it was an admission) that he is not interested in furthering knowledge for its own sake... a position which is guaranteed to lead to confirmation bias... so, ironically, is an example of him shutting his own eyes to truth (or at least the possibility of being wrong. If I'm wrong about atheism and God really does exist... at least I seek knowledge for its own sake so I have no reason to shut my eyes to anything that supports theism. Because I don't seek knowledge merely to further atheism... I seek knowledge to seek knowledge).

[Joods]

But that's the thing though. People here say terribly offensive things and make generalizations and assumptions about theists all the time lol. Just look through the threads and even some of the thread titles alone. The generalizations and offensive things Neo said about atheists on the debate thread don't really compare to the amount aimed at theists throughout the rest of the forums.

I'm not saying this to complain about it. It's an atheist forum, so of course. I get it lol. My point is simply to point out the double standard I'm seeing. People think Neo is a horrible person for the things he's said about atheists, while everyone else is fine and dandy for what they say about theists. Don't you guys see that?

And yes, Neo is a smartass a lot of times and come off cold and says some insulting things to people that piss them off. But nothing I've seen him say to people is as bad as what I've seen people say to him. And a lot of the reason he is like that is as a response to people having done it to him first, not as the instigator of it all. I am being a completely objective observer here when I say this. I'm not saying he's right to insult people right back or that his generalizations are fair. What I'm saying is that I'm seeing a double standard here, in some people thinking he's awful or sociopathic for saying these things, when many of you guys do the same thing... and do it worse even lol.

Mathilda made a comment to me on a thread that got deleted, that I supposedly "know very well" that as long as us theists are nice, you'll be nice to us. I'm sorry, but this hasn't necessarily been the case lol. It took a while for me to earn respect around here, despite me being very careful to be respectful right off the bat. Someone with less patience and less faith in humanity than myself would probably have given up on trying to stay nice pretty soon after joining.

Again, I'm not complaining about this. I just don't think some people are seeing the double standards when they're pegging Neo as this awful person who insults people and makes mean generalizations about atheists.

And now comes the truth of why a special section is really wanted. 

Theists also dish it out. But evidently theists need a special place in order to do just that so that they don't have to deal with the backlash. 

AF is just that. Atheist Forums. Theists are welcome here but as the rules implicitly imply - when you all post or respond, you need to be mindful of the community with which you are responding to. 


I'll let that marinate.

[Edwardo Piet]

But but but.... he said everyone knew it!

I knew it, and I stopped calling him it. Not that he notices when people actually do respect his wishes, even the people who are the most otherwise hostile towards him (people such as myself)...


... but I do think my hostility is justified. That's the point. I'm not hostile to just any theist. There's a reason I don't talk to CL like I do to Neo. Because she's not an abject judgmental asshole full of almost nothing but smarmy obfuscation, implicitly confessed confirmation bias and prejudice towards atheists.

Even if justified is it required?  Is it best for you?  Is it what you’d have everyone do in your place?

I'm not sure. But I think many people share my conception of him and I tend to just say stuff I think is true. For me it's not about ulterior motives, pragmatism or saying what's required it's just about being authentic and accurate for its own sake.

As for the last question... is it what I'd have everyone do in my place? Seems like a non-sequitur if you ask me as morally I'm very anti-Kantian and that question springs from a Kantian principle.

[Catholic_Lady]

If Chad has any personal integrity he would make that his final post and depart AF.

I changed my username because another member was calling on others to physically harm me. Everyone knows this. I guess it is too much to ask that people stop referring to me by name and respect the concerns I have for the safety of me and my family.

Wow, I did not know this. I'm sorry, I'm one of the people who occasionally calls you by your name.

---

To clarify, are you saying that it's ok to insult people and generalize groups in an unflattering way so long as you're on the correct side of the argument? I may have misunderstood.

No I'm saying it's not a generalization if the generalization is correct. Just as it's not a generalization to say that all squares have four sides or generalization to say that all Nazis who followed Hitler all followed Hitler.

Of course, nowhere did I suggest that all theists are anything--besides irrational in their theism--but the point is that what I said wasn't judgmental or patronizing because what he actually quoted I was right about, as Mathilda confirmed (all I was doing is saying what I think Mathilda was trying to say and it turns out it really was what she was trying to say)... but what he said was judgmental and patronizing because he literally spoke of atheists being ignorant of the truth and yet his beliefs about atheism being wrong have no basis. And what's more: he went much further than that... he said that we didn't even want hope, that we weren't even seeking the truth in other words--the truth from his perspective i.e. Christianity--and... ironically he flat out admitted (albeit implicitly but regardless of what he said it was an admission) that he is not interested in furthering knowledge for its own sake... a position which is guaranteed to lead to confirmation bias... so, ironically, is an example of him shutting his own eyes to truth (or at least the possibility of being wrong. If I'm wrong about atheism and God really does exist... at least I seek knowledge for its own sake so I have no reason to shut my eyes to anything that supports theism. Because I don't seek knowledge merely to further atheism... I seek knowledge to seek knowledge).

I don't think many of the generalizations made here about theists is correct.